Regarding the right to appeal I would like to make some comments share my views, maybe wrong or maybe lacking a good foundation or at least more extensive, this may be because one has ensima all end or at the end you have them ensima, employers, teachers to matters in the end.
In particular, the opinion is on the right to remedy shall be the aggrieved party (complainant) in a case on point seem to agree Maier, Sgro and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in that art. 8, ap. 2 h. of the Convention is literally a guarantee which protects the right of appeal from convicted or accused of crime.
the other hand, in dissent, found that only this humble servant.
That is, the interpretation of the rule that I make, maybe this wrong, but it is different, the rule says: 8. 2. Every person accused of crime has the right to be presumed innocent until
establish his guilt. During the process, all
person is entitled in full equality , the following guarantees :
h) right to appeal the ruling to a higher court .
the legislature while in principle he starts talking about all persons accused of crime, clarifying the right of presumption of innocence, or status, then point followed, clear several times that 1st. during the proceedings, every person, ie I think I stop talking about the accused in the crime, and refers to persons involved in the process, in my view the only person, not being the accused, which acts in the process is the Plaintiff, is not the MPF, as this is nothing more and nothing less than the state, share what sets our SCJ in the preceding Arce, in that this does not fit the rights and guarantees that are governed by the Covenants, but only to people (rather Arce defendant) and not the State, then in bracket are the rule reads, in full equality, ie I think it is talking to these guarantees must also interpreted in favor of the plaintiff, of course, only those harmonic play of this article and the rest does not impair the rights of the accused, that is, to refer particularly to the right to appeal the law believe that the rule also states that it has complainant, but I see it is unnecessary bounding across the back, is talking of everyone and talk about full equality, ie equality of people, I think denuevo is equality in the only two people involved in the process, the accused and complainant obviously these are not the same, and can not be granted to the complainant the same assurances with which the accused has, that's a lejado to my reading, and would undermine the system of guarantees which has only the person is who is facing the judicial system with the threat of imprisonment, and in the case against two prosecutors.
But igualmnete believe that the right to appeal is also granted to the Plaintiff through 8. 2.h, also in specific cases and not violate other principles of the accused as the ne bis in idem, which is a valuable question Maier.
Our SCJ, the Judgement "JURI" dated 27/12/2006, published in the law, disagrees with my position, (the evil it does), this precedent and citing "Arce", sets the view that although the complainant has the right to appeal in the particular case (literally beating the established art. 458, 460 CPP and the particularities of the case) as provided in " international standards on safeguards and judicial protection provided for in the arts. 8, par. 1 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights and not the 8. 2. h. as in the case, raises the defense. Booking these only the accused.
In my opinion the standard not only speaks of the accused, but the other person involved in the process, it also speaks of equality (CN regulated also in our art. 16), ie, namely the right to be heard and the jurisdiction that corresponds to the complainant, should be protected in regard to criminal proceedings shall JOINING reading people harmonic found in processes with competing interests, but that the judges finally requested to be heard, and in a reasonable time. Roberto Arturo Martinez
DNI 29,471,082
0 comments:
Post a Comment